Lynn v. Sekulow

Mojave Cross — A Constitutional Crisis Indeed

It was a pleasure seeing you, too. I always am up for a great photo-op, too.

As you know, I’m heading to New York right now to appear on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight to discuss this very case. But here are some of my thoughts in advance.

To me, the most shocking comment of the day came from Justice Antonin Scalia. He actually said that this cross represents all veterans, even those who are not Christian. He said it was an “outrageous conclusion” that the cross is a symbol of Christianity and claims it is symbol of a “resting place.”

Is Scalia seriously arguing that the cross is no longer a religious symbol? Now THAT is an outrageous conclusion. I believe our veterans deserve to be honored just as much as you do, Jay. But why do we need to use a Christian symbol to do that at the expense of excluding those of different faiths?

As I told the press this morning on the portico of the Supreme Court, moments before I ran into you:

“The cross in Mojave Reserve has no historic significance, it has no
secular significance; it is a powerful symbol of the dominant religion
in this country and, as such, it has no business being in the Mojave
Preserve.

“There is not one reasonable person,” I continued, “who drives on those
roads and sees this cross on one acre who doesn’t think that that acre
is controlled — like the 1.6 million other acres — by the federal
government for people of all faiths, no faiths and people of all
ideological persuasions.”

A few quick words about “standing” – – the right to sue. I agree with
you that it is very hard to read where Justice Kennedy will stand on
this issue. My hope is that he will agree that standing, or Buono’s
right to sue in this case, should not even be open for discussion.

First off, as Americans United wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief
in this case, religious symbols on government land do inflict harm on
the observer that is far too significant to go unremedied.

AU’s brief cites to studies that show even “subliminal exposure to a
symbol of one’s own faith can yield physical as well as psychological
benefits, while similar exposure to what one might consider a
‘negative’ religious symbol can be correspondingly detrimental.”

You are suggesting that the high court should use this case to get rid
of Americans’ right to sue in cases such as these. That would overturn
decades of settled law in a way that would be detrimental to our civil
liberties. Citizens subjected to government-sponsored religion through
spoken or written words can bring a lawsuit. I don’t see how someone
subjected to that same message in a symbolic form somehow loses that
right.

But I’m hoping, based on what I heard in court today, that I don’t have to worry about that.

Our justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed to be under
the impression during oral arguments today that standing should not be
discussed in this case. And if I read the justices correctly, I
couldn’t agree more.

I don’t know how our justices are going to come out on this case. But I know AU and our allies have a winning argument.

I’d also just like to add that Frank Buono, the offended-observer
plaintiff in this case, is not an “ideologically motivated citizen,” as
you suggest. He is a Catholic who told Americans United’s Church &
State magazine that he believes the greatest threat to freedom of
religion is “when the government is not neutral toward religion.” To
him, this cross on public land seemed like the government preferred one
religion over others, and he knows that is not fair or right. It’s as
simple as that.

The sad truth is that the government has been shameless in trying to
keep this cross up, all the while knowing it has denied other religious
groups the same opportunity. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court sees this
case for what it really is and ends this 10-year-long battle by
removing this unconstitutional cross.

Justice Scalia’s continued readiness to reach opinions in church-state cases prior to hearing and considering parties’ arguments is astonishing. I believe he should, ethically, recuse himself from church-state cases. His comments outside of proceedings on this issue also raise concerns about his conduct. The cross is a religious symbol and not everyone is a Christian or religious.

Thank you, Rev. Lynn, for fighting on my behalf. As an atheist, you give me hope that there are religious people who understand what the First Amendment is all about. There are way too many so-called religious people in this country, and in the world, who have made me despise religion. It takes someone like you to make me remember that not all religious people are horrid. Sadly, there are many horrid people who hide behind religion, and who use religion as a reason to hate.
Scalia is a complete disaster, as a SCOTUS justice, and, increasingly, I think, as a human being. His stance on abortion and capital punishment defy understanding. They’re irreconciliable with Catholic doctrine, and he professes to be a practicing Catholic. I would never bring it up, except that he does. I honestly think he’s got a screw loose.
On the subject of recusal – if he didn’t recuse himself during Bush v. Gore, when his son was an attorney at the firm arguing Bush’s case, he’s never going to recuse himself.
Can we impeach a SCOTUS justice? I honestly believe he should be impeached for his failure to recuse during Bush v. Gore, and also when he went hunting with Cheney, and then ruled on a case involving Cheney. The man has no moral compass.
And Scalia can just get away with saying anything he wants? Even something incredibly stupid and wrong like he did yesterday? That the cross is a symbol of all veterans? That would surprise the hell out of my late father, a WWII veteran, who was Jewish. He would be extremely upset at a monument honoring him with a cross. But I guess, to Scalia, my father didn’t count. Nice.

I was just wondering why this one cross out of all the crosses in the world offends this person who I heard lives in Oregon and the cross is in California. I did not know a person could see that far. Is he saying that done of the crosses in his state offends him, just the one in the desert????? All I can say is that there sure must be some stupid lawyers and judges to let it go as far as it has. Some judge should have said if you do not like it here, get out of Dodge.

It is clear that Scalia does not have a very firm grasp on his faith. His remark that “it was an ‘outrageous conclusion’ that the cross is a symbol of Christianity and claims it is symbol of a ‘resting place.’ ” completely devalues the cross. He has dismissed it as no more than a Railroad Crossing or Yield traffic control sign. I would hope his priest, as well as all of the RCC clergy would rise up and demand he return to confirmation class. At the same time he has dismissed Christianity as a default position, as if there is nothing else. That ignores any sense of the call of faith or the belief that there is something unique about being a Christian. By this standard, having a library card is more distinctive! In trying to appease the conservative element in the country, a group he supposes is his base of support, he has actually discounted the very foundation on which they base their platform. This is but one more proof that Saclia has no grasp of the nuances and subtleties required to make judgments from this bench.

I believe the cross, is indeed a symbol of Christianty, as much as is the 6 pointed star a symbol of Judism, and the Cresent moon and star, symbols of Islam. Are we suggesting that any picture of a moon & star, should be removed from our collective consciousness? Or is it that the cross has a meaning all its own? For many it is a symbol of sacrifice. If we begin to remove all symbols of meaning in our collective consiousness, I believe that is more harmful than the cross itself. Its called brian washing, to suit whom? Is it our Countrys desire to remove all symbols, statues,words, that are all part of our collective consciousness, as well as the foundation of our countrys beginnings.

When I visited D.C, the most stunning stop for me was Arlington Memorial Cemetery where the crosses traverse the acres where the men and women are buried who served our country. Yes, the cross is a symbol of Christianity because if we deny the truth that Christ died on a cross and rose again, then we have no Christianity. We don’t need fewer crosses, we need more backbone. The people who placed that cross 75 years ago would never have dreamed that some offended drive-by folks would whine all the way to the Supreme Court. Justice was God’s idea so hopefully it will prevail, they can wipe away their tears and turn their eyes, even if turning the other cheek is too difficult . . . maybe because it is Biblical?
Thomhttp://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/

Ellie Dee,
I believe that there is no attempt to remove all symbols. Instead, I think this is part of a larger effort to apply more meaning to the symbols we have. Failing that, it may be time to apply new symbols. Would it not have been more effective and meaningful in this particular setting to use a flag rather than the cross?
By the way, I am always amused by reading typos. You wrote, “Its called brian washing,” Having washed a few “brians” in my typing, it is fun to thing about all the sparkling clean Brians in the world.
Your name,
To be absolutely precise, the Freedom of Religion portion is not in the Constitution, but in the Bill of Rights, Amendments to the Constitution.

Ellie Dee,
I believe that there is no attempt to remove all symbols. Instead, I think this is part of a larger effort to apply more meaning to the symbols we have. Failing that, it may be time to apply new symbols. Would it not have been more effective and meaningful in this particular setting to use a flag rather than the cross?
By the way, I am always amused by reading typos. You wrote, “Its called brian washing,” Having washed a few “brians” in my typing, it is fun to thing about all the sparkling clean Brians in the world.
Your name,
To be absolutely precise, the Freedom of Religion portion is not in the Constitution, but in the Bill of Rights, Amendments to the Constitution.

Ellie Dee,
You ask some interesting questions that deserve sober, reasoned responses (unlike Scaliea’s).“Are we suggesting that any picture of a moon & star, should be removed from our collective consciousness?”
Of course not. But religious symbols – of any kind, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindhu, etc. – have no place in government-controlled spaces. They are the domain of ALL people, not just those of a particular (or no) faith.“Or is it that the cross has a meaning all its own? For many it is a symbol of sacrifice.”
But the “sacrifice” to which you refer was a “Christian” event (presumably, the sacrifice of Christ). Not all citizens (specifically, veterans) are Christian.“If we begin to remove all symbols of meaning in our collective consiousness, I believe that is more harmful than the cross itself.”
First of all, no one is suggesting (or even think probable or possible) that we remove all symbols from “our collective [hint: that would include Jews, Muslims, et al] conscience”. However, this cross in this place does not have the meaning Scalia wishes it did. Also, I haven’t read anywhere that this “cross itself” is “harmful”. What it is is exclusive, rather than inclusive. The government (upon who’s land this cross resides) has no business giving preference to the symbol of any one particular religion.“Its called brian washing, to suit whom?”
And who’s interests are served by Christian brainwashing?” Is it our Countrys desire to remove all symbols, statues,words, that are all part of our collective consciousness”
In a word, “NO!” And no one is attempting to do that. “Our collective consciousness” would, of necessity, include the consciousnesses of American citizens who happen not to be Christian. This very Christian symnbol is an affront to those of other religions (and of no religion). No one wants to eradicate Christian symbols; we do want them removed from government-run spaces, since they don’t belong there in thefirst place.“as well as the foundation of our countrys beginnings.”
This is mere myth-making and does not deserve a reply like the rest of your questions did.
The non-Christian citizens don’t want your religion shoved down their throats.

No one wants to eradicate Christian symbols; we do want them removed from government-run spaces, since they don’t belong there in thefirst place.
Boris says: Wring. We want to eradicate Christianity as well as all of its stupid symbols.

Exactly what do you want to keep seperate, your name?
What is the quote your referring to in The Constitution, as seperate?
Another thing, if I am a Christian and we are indeed the church, you can’t seperate me from myself, know matter where I am at.
For if you did take the God out of me in decision making, it clearly would be against my religion and against who is inside of me. Meaning, the Holy Spirit, if indeed you have excepted Him.
So there you have it, it is impossible to seperate God out of me or remove God out of me, meaning the Church when I enter the room. It is clearly a part of me. You can’t make me into a ficus tree, if clearly I am an apple tree.
That is the problem, I see that your removing God out of your decisions and making your decisions purely based on your own ideas and philosophies which would indeed be making yourself and our government godless, no thanks.
God Bless You

Our government is and always has been Godless simply because there is no God. You’re Godless too, you are just too brainwashed by other people to realize it.
“Homo religiosus invents religious symbols, which he venerates and worships to save him from facing the finality of his death and dissolution… In the last analysis it is the theist who can find no ultimate meaning in his life and who denigrates it… The theist can only find meaning by leaving this life for a transcendental would beyond the grave.” Paul Kurtz
You lose.

Your Name
October 8, 2009 3:20 PM
“Exactly what do you want to keep seperate, your name?”
If you are referring to the statement:
Your Name
October 8, 2009 1:36 PM
“No, just to keep government and religion separate as our Constitution prescribes.”
I think it was self-explanatory–government and religion.
“What is the quote your referring to in The Constitution, as seperate?”
I note that the First Amendment is the correct place within our Constitution to find the Establishment Clause. To understand the intent, separation of government from religion, of the First Amendment is not difficult.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
No law. Religion, the broad term includes all aspects. This separates them to a very high degree. Free exercise may be abridged, not prohibited. I also refer to Art. 6, Sec. 3., “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. No religious test. None. Seems to sincerely separate religion and government.
In the writings of James Madison, preeminent among drafters of the Constitution and Founding Fathers, I easily find corroboration of the meaning.
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history” (Madison, undated, “Detached Memoranda,” William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555).
“Another thing, if I am a Christian and we are indeed the church, you can’t seperate me from myself, know matter where I am at.
For if you did take the God out of me in decision making, it clearly would be against my religion and against who is inside of me. Meaning, the Holy Spirit, if indeed you have excepted Him.
So there you have it, it is impossible to seperate God out of me or remove God out of me, meaning the Church when I enter the room. It is clearly a part of me. You can’t make me into a ficus tree, if clearly I am an apple tree.”
Um, yeah. Nobody is talking about taking your God beliefs away from you. You are a person, not the government. You keep your beliefs even if you work for the government, but you may not pass laws respecting an establishment of religion or apply a religious test in violation of law.
“That is the problem, I see that your removing God out of your decisions and making your decisions purely based on your own ideas and philosophies which would indeed be making yourself and our government godless, no thanks.
God Bless You”
I don’t see it as a problem at all, and agree with Boris that godless is the natural state of existence. I do not need a god belief to form ideas, philosophies, or decisions…and I don’t want ideas, philosophies, or decisions of the religious forced upon me in any way shape or form. Thanks for the kind thought though, and I wish you well in return.

Dear Sir or Madam:
I as of all other American Citizen Taxpayers are disappointed and perplexed in what Washington is doing against the Constitution of the United States under pressure by ACORN, LA RAZA, and other Special interest Groups that think they have a right to call an American Citizen or Groups trying to protect our Constitution Racist. Anyone that opposes Special Interest Groups and Latino views are now racist.
Any Police Dept. that arrest or detain documented or undocumented persons can be called a racist to stop or cause more cost to the American Taxpayers.
Our Government Officials in Washington, in States, Cities and Towns, before they take Offices pledges to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution of the United States is not broken. It’s the people in Government that has allowed and is allowing these peoples to get away with this.
America has always allowed Human Rights come when peoples follow the laws of this country they enter it legally or Illegally.
When 12 to 20 Million peoples entered the United States Illegally knowing we have laws and still break those laws they are not Welcome here.
Today I went to my Doctor to get a flu shot. I ask about the H1N1 swine flu shots and was told it was not received at this time. I was also told that only certain groups would be allowed to receive the vaccination.
I furthered questioned who would be allowed and was told Medical workers, pregnant woman, children, anchor babies and Illegal Immigrants. I was also told some groups that should have some immunity to the virus (even though its probably not the exact same virus) would not probably be considered. Those born from 1950 to 1957 should have some immunity.
American Citizen taxpayers are having to pay for vaccinations even though they are not working due to the fact Washington is allowing Illegal Aliens still have their American Jobs. Is this part of the DEATH PANEL? Vaccinations for legal and Illegal Aliens and letting American Citizens die of this disease brought in by Illegal Immigrants.
Can You Peoples FACE GOD.
The Federal Government is still making up new and different Visas as a way to convenience Big Business bringing in millions from other Countries for Cheap Labor.
This is being done under the scene so the American Public does not know what is going on.
How many Visas do thing America Needs to accommodate this Business and Lobbyist while they refuse to hire Americans? We American’s are not uneducated as the lobbyist and business would like you to think.
Businesses are not hiring Americans using age, sex, or race as issue if they are American Citizens. I know my Husband has an IQ of 146 but is 56. He may have no College because he never had the money or opportunity given to Legal and Illegal Aliens, yet they get the job.
After the 1986 Amnesty, the whole World believes they can get the same treatment, especially Mexico and South Americans, because someone in Washington is not doing the job of defending the Constitution the United States or the Citizens of America. This is what you people were Elected to do. Not back down from the law to accommodate Lobbyist or Special Interest Groups financed by American Tax dollars and using them against the people of the United States.
I do not care what Country Illegal Aliens come from they need to go home and fight there for a better life instead of stealing American Citizens ID’s, credit cards, birth certificates and etc. demanding rights they are not by the Bible that say we are the follow the Commandments of God and the Rule of the Land. This is not what they are doing,
Racial Profiling is only used to get away with breaking the law in every case I read on CIS. Org or seen on the News.
Washington needs return to the rule of Law and put God back into the Country.
I know I am not perfect but I am an American Citizen, A taxpayer and a good Citizen and have been my whole life.
American Citizens are being kidnapped, raped or killed for less in other Countries. We the people are forced to send tax dollars to Mexico and other Countries yearly with no thanks.
We lost our manufacturing jobs for Cheap Labor in other countries and not millions of immigrants are allowed to come here and take what is left.
I am 59 years old and cannot get the medical care I need but Illegal Aliens don’t even get questioned.
Illegal Aliens get educated not just because they came here with their parents Illegally, they are being bused from Mexico to our Border States illegally, but no one is allowed to ask questions.
If an American Citizen breaks the Law, they are prosecuted to Limit of the law.
1 WHO IS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN TREATED AS AN UNDER CITIZEN BELOW LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ALIENS BY ELECTED OFFICIALS?
2 LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT TAX PAYERS AND SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS!
3 LEGAL AND ILLEGAL ALIENS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET ANY CITIZEN TAX PAID SUBSTUDIES? NONE NOT EVEN EDUCATION.
Stopping them from free service would stop Illegal Immigration.

Like I said and wrote before, you try and take God out of policy you indeed get godless views and godless people. I would prefer to stick to apple trees, meaning, people who are wise enough to fear God enough to want His policies in effect instead of your own godless views of hypocrasy. Meaning that, your views are far wiser than God’s. I already see Thou Shalt Not Kill being violated with government funds. How awful is that. So you just keep on preaching to the chior of making your own views your God authority, in escence establishing your views as God. For if you take God out of government, you indeed get godless people with godless establishments, doing godless things.
Ya you are trying to take God away. Making your own views as dictatorship. This is why people are murdering people under policy not giving our posterity a chance to survive and grow. Only yourself is what is important, right? selfishness perscibed through authority.
Make sure you have what you need and take whatever you can get. This is indeed what is the problem with society.
God Bless.
Don’t exspect to make the world a better place by your own selfishness. Make sure you get what you need, not to care what others feel or need, just what you need is what is important? right?
WRONG

You need more research on your physical body. Obviously your missing something when it comes to being created. Once again you don’t see God in anthing. Only your views as god, right Boris?
Can’t you just take your eye and look at it in the mirror and realize how complex it to be? How light reflects back through it and how your able to see out of it, to realize that your indeed created?
Yes, I know you want to be a ficus tree without any fruit. Just a blob of tissue, right Boris? Nothing of true existance to varify as a human being in existance? Something that can be destroyed and reconstituted like a piece of cardboard or something? Sold on the black market as if it were a piece of cheese to have on a sandwich.
A person is a person, not a blob of tissue. Thank you very much, Boris for your time and energy but I see you as saving yourself instead of people.
Cara

Ineresting to note when confronted with the truth, you see it as imbalced. You do need professional help immediately, no name.
By the way here, I don’t see any seperation of Church and State in the Constitution or The Bill Of Rights.
For those godless people out there, who always are confronted with the truth, they always point the finger in the other direction, wrather than themselves. I do seek professional help, no name. Too bad you have to stay under a no name view, because darkness always hides. You like the dark don’t you, that is why you jab at the light and call it insane. For that is what they did to Jesus, so I am not surprised at your hypocrasy.
Cara Floyd

By the way no name, in the earlier blog with the ending word, WRONG, that was me. I would not want to be confused with your dilusional characteristics at saying somebody is crazy for fighting for our nation to be under God instead of godless, like you. For if you were truly doing the work of The Kingdom, you would be loving people like me who stick up for protecting the unborn and fight for the headship of God, instead of the biased views of godless people who want that as leadership. No thanks, that is what has lead our country into this frenzy of ludicrous ideas of nonsence as being policy. Murder is murder, even when you call it Embryonic Stem-Cell research, The Morning After Pill or abortion. So call it reproductive health choice policies, I know what it is . MURDER
There You Have It,
CARA FLOYD

For if you were truly doing the work of The Kingdom, you would be loving people like me who stick up for protecting the unborn and fight for the headship of God…
That’s exactly the problem you have, Cara. You think everyone should be doing the work of The Kingdom. That is where you are sadly mistaken.

For that is what they did to Jesus, so I am not surprised at your hypocrasy.
Boris says: Get this through your skull: Jesus Christ never existed. Christianity is a retarded hoax believed by only the simplest minds and the most evil among us. Who is more evil mined than Cara Floyd on this planet? She’s another version of Adolph Hitler the most Christian man who ever lived. Who else roasted millions of people for not accepting Christian dogma? Hitler was just doing what Jesus supposedly does.

Poor Pippy, her little brain couldn’t stand the strain of dealing with the real world, so it retreated into the land of make-believe where it can be happy in always knowing what’s right, and best for every person on Earth.

Poor little Pippy, has a headache again, that is why she retreats back to her cave from misguided people who profess the teachings of selfishness and nothing of worthiness. So she needs to take an advil, now and again big deal. At least she is trying to make a difference in the world by trying to save the people that the government is trying to destroy through the almighty pen and legislation.
God only knows that she wants a life of, life liberty and the persuit of happiness. It does not say that you are supposed to murder people in the process of becoming an American, now does it. So if your going to try and bark up the wrong tree, try checking your own conscience as to what you should be doing of worthwhile abilities.
C.F.

In some sense, Scalia is correct. To some extent, the cross has become a secularized symbol of a final resting place. The irony is that those who fight so hard to keep it visible in governmental venues should be appalled at its secularized status.
They are not interested in it as the powerful religious symbol it represents to the faithful, but as a symbol of power — of their religion over others. It is nothing short of idolatry.

In some sense, Scalia is correct. To some extent, the cross has become a secularized symbol of a final resting place. The irony is that those who fight so hard to keep it visible in governmental venues should be appalled at its secularized status.
They are not interested in it as the powerful religious symbol it represents to the faithful, but as a symbol of power — of their religion over others. It is nothing short of idolatry.

When nothing you do seems to work out. Or you see the people who caused you pain succeed in wrongdoing, seek refuge. Let others who love you come and visit you so they can be your friend. Stay clear from those who try and hurt you, for they worship themselves and there own ideals or philosophies which are clearly self-centered.

Agnostics are often the most helpful people, concerned more with humanity than a belief system. Most religious people seem intent on trying to bend you over (sometimes literally) or change you, rather than accept you for who you are.

“Most religious people seem intent on trying to bend you over (sometimes literally) or change you, rather than accept you for who you are.”
True, true. Thankfully true Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship…can’t force that.
Philippians 2:3-4
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

And how is forcing “under God” into the national pledge looking to the interests of others who don’t believe such a being exists?
I know Christians don’t define their belief system as a religion, I consider that as being somewhat contrived but it’s not my business if they want to have a relationship with an imaginary being.

“And how is forcing “under God” into the national pledge looking to the interests of others who don’t believe such a being exists?”
Just quoting what the Bible says. Take it as you will…
“I know Christians don’t define their belief system as a religion, I consider that as being somewhat contrived but it’s not my business if they want to have a relationship with an imaginary being.”
Better than having no relationship will a real being.

“Just quoting what the Bible says.”
Ah, not saying how Christians act, only how the Bible directs them to act. Well, it’s true enough of agnostics also I suppose that many profess philosophies which they do not follow.
“Better than having no relationship will a real being.”
A real being? Like The Emperor’s clothes than only some can see? Not me, I see the Emperor’s royal, wrinkled, butt! The relationship I have with living beings is real enough and occupies me sufficiently.

What does that have to do with?
I have been writing these blogs to save the children around the world from death of abortion, Embryonic Stem-Cell and the morning after pill
Consistantly I have brought up my own faith to point out how this is against keeping people alive.
Next I brought up biblical accounts to bring forth actual events for people to recognize that
The God of the Bible does exist.
Only to point out that the Ten Commandments was written for people to come under God’s headship, other then themselves as their own ideals and philosophies are indeed that, their own.
For, pointing out this to the general public is for people to recognize that they to are under a headship other than the government.
So there you have it.
Cara Floyd

Agnostic bend over? What was that?
Religious what?
Agnostics are those who are unsure if they believe in a God or realy haven’t made up there minds yet on who that God is, right?
I suppose so they don’t have to go under the headship of Christianity, right? That would be too confining for them?
Too many rules and regulations and mindsets on not being a sinner?
That way you don’t have to be accountable to not sin or the consequences?
A

Your Name, that’s nonsense to depict agnostics as lawless, self-willed hedonists. We’re all accountable to our “sins”. (A lot of you Christians need to be more accountable to proper English usage, by the way, a problem I haven’t noticed so much with the agnostics.)

Reverend Lynn,
I disagree with you when you say that the “cross in Mojave Reserve has no historic significance.” It was created as a war memorial to war veterans; that seems historic to me.
Also, you argue that the cross can only be interpreted as a religious symbol. Is the American Red Cross a strictly Christian organization? No. They aid people of all religions and are represented by a cross. The cross symbolizes the Christian religion, but also represents other organizations that are not strictly Christian. Why can’t the cross in the Mojave Reserve do the same thing? It was erected as a historic memorial. Why can’t it continue to play that role?

And the “Red Cross” does not exist in the Middle East…there you find the “Red Crescent” or the “Red Star of David” or the “Red Crystal”. And the Red Cross has all arms the same length and the crossing point is centered on the upright and horizontal. The cross in the the Mojave Desert is NOT the same, but is the symbol used by Christians. I did not renew my VFW membership as a result of this suit, as I feel they are supporting a position that does nto represent me as a Veteran.

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy:
Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice
Happy Reading!

Another blog to enjoy!!!Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy:
Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice
Happy Reading!!!

More to ComeBarry,
It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space. I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.
My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

Thanks for the MemoriesWell Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

President Obama: Does He Get It?Barry,
I would not use that label to identify the President. I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.
Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

Please note that in discussing political issues, candidates’ positions and political party statements, the Rev. Barry Lynn and Jay Sekulow are offering analysis in their individual capacities as lawyers and commentators. They are not speaking on behalf of Americans United for Separation for Church and State or for the American Center for Law & Justice. Those organizations do not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. Nothing contained in this dialogue should be construed as the positions of the respective organizations.